Scribd
Upload
180 views2 pages

The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Vs Judge Jose Majaducon

The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee was investigating alleged irregular funds in the AFP. During hearings, it was revealed that land was purchased by the AFP Retirement fund for an amount higher than what was indicated in the deed of sale. The Committee subpoenaed Atty. Flaviano to testify, but he refused and obtained a court injunction from Judge Majaducon preventing his testimony. The Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot interfere with the legislature's constitutional power to conduct inquiries, and that Judge Majaducon overstepped by issuing the injunction. The Court also ruled that Senator Pimentel's comments in the Committee report did not constitute contempt of court.

Uploaded by

Trisha Dela Rosa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
180 views2 pages

The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Vs Judge Jose Majaducon

The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee was investigating alleged irregular funds in the AFP. During hearings, it was revealed that land was purchased by the AFP Retirement fund for an amount higher than what was indicated in the deed of sale. The Committee subpoenaed Atty. Flaviano to testify, but he refused and obtained a court injunction from Judge Majaducon preventing his testimony. The Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot interfere with the legislature's constitutional power to conduct inquiries, and that Judge Majaducon overstepped by issuing the injunction. The Court also ruled that Senator Pimentel's comments in the Committee report did not constitute contempt of court.

Uploaded by

Trisha Dela Rosa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee vs Judge Jose Majaducon

GR nos. 136760 and 138378 July 29, 2003 Justice Ynares-Santiago


FACTS:
GR 136760
In August 1998, Senator Blas Ople filed Senate Resolution 157, directing the Committee
of National Defense and Security to conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation, into the charges that
a group of active and retired military officials were organizing a coup d’etat to prevent the
Estrada administration from probing alleged fund irregularities in the AFP. Senator Sotto also
filed Resolution No. 160, directing the said committees to investigate on the alleged
mismanagement of the AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System. The Senate President
then referred the two resolutions to the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee.
During the public hearings, it was shown the AFP-RSBS purchased a lot in GenSan for
P10,500 per sq.m from private respondent Atty. Nilo Flaviano, but the deed of sale indicated that
the purchase price was only P3,000. Flaviano was directed to testify on the matter, but he refused
to appear. Instead, he filed a petition for Writ of Preliminary Injunction in the RTC of GenSan.
Judge Jose Majaducon, the judge of that RTC, granted Flaviano’s petition despite strong
contention from the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. The decision enjoined the Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee from enforcing its subpoenas for appearance and testimony to the petitioner
in Region XI. Hence, the present petition was filed to the SC, alleging that Judge Majaducon
committed grave abuse of discretion in granting Flaviano’s motion for a WPI.
GR 138378
In 1999, the Philippine Star quoted portions of the report of the Committee as regards the
filing of the petition for certiorari. The said report alleged that Judge Majaducom was guilty of
gross ignorance of the law when he issued the TRO, because under the principle of separation of
powers, courts cannot interfere with the legislature’s power to conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation.
Judge Majaducom then initiated a charge against Senator Pimentel and the news reporter
for indirect contempt of court, arguing that the report tainted his image and made him appear to
be ignorant of the (basic) principle of separation of powers.
ISSUES:
- 1st case: W/N courts may interfere with the legislative power to conduct inquiries in aid
of legislation (NO)
- 2nd case: W/N Majaducom was justified in charging Pimentel et. al with indirect contempt
of court (NO)
RULING:
- 1st case: When the Senate directed Flaviano to appear and testify, it did so in accordance
with its constitutional power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. Since this is in
accordance with a constitutional power, any court cannot interfere with this.
o Bengzon does not apply to this case, because in Bengzon it was clear that the
investigation was not in aid of legislation in the first place. Furthermore, in
Bengzon a case was pending in the Sandiganbayan, hence the legislature was
encroaching on the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. In the present case, the
complaint against Flaviano was still pending with the Ombudsman. Since it is
only the complaint which is pending, no court has jurisdiction yet.
nd
- 2 case: When Senator Pimentel used the words “gross ignorance of the law” in the
Committee report, he did not aim to insult Judge Majaducon directly. He was using this
term in the generic sense, as it is used in petitions where the decisions of lower courts are
challenged in higher courts. Furthermore, it was not sufficiently shown that Pimentel
caused the publishing of the report in the Philippine Star.
- Petitions are GRANTED.

You might also like